Mr. Speaker, last week the media obtained a Privy Council report from November 2006. It detailed the deteriorating security environment in Afghanistan.

Yet knowing all this, the government put out a report in the House that said the exact opposite.

Canadians are prepared for the truth about Afghanistan and they deserve nothing less. Why does the Prime Minister tolerate his ministers tabling happy fables in the House? Is it not time for some truth in this place?

Peter MacKayMinister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, clearly there have been incidents that have been tragic, and the circumstances in Afghanistan remain volatile, but let us talk about the truth in Afghanistan.

There are millions of Afghan refugees returning to Afghanistan. There are millions of children now in school, including girls, who were never there before. There are millions of vaccinations taking place for children. Schools are being built. Medical clinics, roads, water: there are a lot of good things happening in Afghanistan that the member and members of his party like to overlook.

Mr. Speaker, last week in parliamentary committee, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the Red Cross was investigating allegations of abuse with Afghan authorities. The Red Cross immediately had to refute this false information.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs admit that he once again mislead the House on the treatment of detainees? Has the moment of truth finally arrived?

Peter MacKayMinister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, that is false. That is not right.

I said the International Committee of the Red Cross has a right to visit the detainees, which is under existing international law. It is mentioned in the new enhanced arrangement, as it was in the previous arrangement. That is what I was referring to, and in fact, this supplementary arrangement in no way puts obligations on the part of ICRC.

It does, in fact, raise the expectations and put the onus on the government of Afghanistan to work not only with the Government of Canada but with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission as well as the Red Cross.

Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly is bringing in its own legislation governing the possession of firearms, but still the Prime Minister refuses to meet with the parents of Anastasia De Sousa, the victim of the Dawson College tragedy. The government even had the gall to put its bill to eliminate the gun registry back on the agenda.

Will the Prime Minister drop his ideological goals and his plan to abolish the gun registry, as the De Sousa family has asked?

Mr. Speaker, all members of the government, like all members of Parliament, condemned what happened at Dawson College. We have all expressed our condolences to the families involved. Government ministers set up meetings with the families, college representatives and students, and we are ready to meet with them again anytime, if necessary.

This government also committed to taking all necessary measures to ensure the effectiveness of the firearms control system and to take action against gun crime.

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, the government renewed the gun registry amnesty, which amounts to condemning the gun registry to certain death. For a year now, the Prime Minister has been depriving police forces and citizens of a very useful tool. As we have found out, the firearms control program costs the same whether it is working or not.

As such, why not fully reinstate it and drop plans to abolish it, as the National Assembly and the Bloc Québécois have asked?

Mr. Speaker, this government has brought in several measures to make the gun control system more effective, including measures to make it more effective in the future, more effective than it was during these events.

At the same time, several of these measures were in the budget. We proposed funds to improve the gun control system and to crack down on gun crime. I would note that the Bloc supported this budget.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, commissioner Brown released his report, which describes the organizational and structural problems in the RCMP. In light of the report, the Minister of Public Safety is in favour of appointing a task force to restructure the RCMP.

After the pension plan frauds, the failed Air India investigation and the Maher Arar affair, does the minister not think that a full public inquiry is called for under the circumstances?

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated today that we agree with all of Mr. Brown's recommendations. We need to act, and the time to act is now. It is not time for another inquiry, an eighth inquiry. We want a strong, open RCMP, and we are going to create one. That is why I agree with the recommendations that a task force be set up to give the RCMP a modern structure.

Mr. Speaker, we understand the commissioner's recommendation when we know that his mandate was limited to management of the RCMP pension and insurance fund. In fact, the commissioner acknowledges this himself on pages 37 and 48 of his report. The recommendation that a public inquiry not be held pertains only to the issue of fund administration. A more general inquiry should be held to examine the force's overall culture.

Would the Minister of Public Safety not prefer to hold a single public inquiry to restore the RCMP's transparency, instead of holding 10 partial inquiries as further RCMP mismanagement is discovered?

Mr. Speaker, there is no limit in the recommendations. In fact, the report also recommends that another criminal investigation be held. That is why the RCMP has asked the Ontario Provincial Police to review the previous criminal investigation. As well, as I have stated today, there are other recommendations. There is no limit. It is a good report, and we will follow the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, last year, when the Prime Minister rammed through the softwood sellout, he said that it would end the uncertainty, the bickering and the fighting. It is sort of a familiar phrase.

What are we seeing now? We are seeing the United States attacking our provinces that are simply trying to manage their natural resources. What does the government do? It starts looking at the idea of adding export taxes to this sector which would cost us even more than the tens of thousands of jobs that we have already lost.

How are the working families across the country supposed to trust a government that does such a thing? It delivers pink slips instead of paycheques to the forestry sector.

Mr. Speaker, any disputes that are now occurring between Canada and the United States are occurring within the framework of an agreement that gives Canada ongoing and secure access to the United States' market. That is why the industry across the country wants the agreement to remain in effect and why it would be a terrible thing for the industry if the Liberals and NDP got their way, ripped it up and threw us back into litigation.

Mr. Speaker, workers in this sector were being thrown out of their jobs this past weekend.

The announcement made by Commonwealth Plywood last week is the latest in a series of job losses that have affected workers in Quebec. Thanks to the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, 2,400 more jobs have just been lost in the Outaouais, in Low, Denholm, Princeville, Shawinigan and Mont-Laurier, to name a few places.

Why does the government continue to make concessions after the negotiations have ended? How many more jobs must be lost?